Struan
> 2) Strawson did not say that no-one holds Pirsig's [SOM]position.
If ,as I did above, we correct your obvious misrepresentation of what I
said, that Strawson said, that Pirsig said, can we agree at least that
Pirsig hold Pirsig's SOM position and that he might by some stretch of the
imagination be 'some one'. I have no first hand empirical knowledge of
this however. But Bo claims to have some and even sent me a picture to
prove it. But, I have no first hand empirical knowledge of Bo either. Or
you for that matter. You all might just be semi-sentinent copies of
Microsoft Word grammar checker for all I know.
> Read your critique with that correction and you will see it collapse.
4) What do you care why I bother? Pseudo non-Buddhist compassion.
> Also for the record.
Let's see if I've got this right. Your philosophical position is
"empirical" "monist" with a liberal dash of skeptism who believes that
that philosophy is an "adjunct to science" with a relationship to it
similar to relationship art criticism has to art.
When you say "science is undoubtedly the driving force and foundation" I
take you to mean "driving force and foundation" of philosophy. And then
depending on what you include in the realm of "science", philosophy
could have either a very limited role or an all encompassing role in
interpretation of reality.
But what about metaphyics? And adjunct to philosophy? A separate field
of endeavor? Or nonsensical musings?
Don't you just love the ring of "Blessed be, Victorian sensibilities?"
3WD
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:00:57 BST